Apparatus and Methods for generating and accessing arguments

ABSTRACT

Disclosed are apparatus and methods for generating and accessing arguments. In one embodiment, an analytical system for generating and accessing arguments is disclosed. Each argument has an associated conclusion as to whether a particular situation will likely have a negative or positive result is disclosed. The analytical system includes a database for storing a plurality of templates that each include a plurality of questions which may be answered to generate a particular argument having an associated conclusion regarding a particular situation that is based on answers to its associated template questions. The system further includes an argument server for selecting one of the templates which is most relevant to a particular situation and for receiving input to one or more of the selected template&#39;s questions to thereby generate a new argument having an associated conclusion based on such answers. The associated conclusion indicates whether the particular situation will likely have a positive or negative result. In another aspect, the invention pertains to a method for accessing or generating an argument having a conclusion for a particular situation. A plurality of templates are searched for a relevant template most related to a particular situation. Each template includes a plurality of questions. One or more questions of the relevant template are answered to then form a new argument having a conclusion based on the one or more answers.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0001] This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) fromco-pending U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/232,186 (AttorneyDocket No. SRI1P027P), filed Sep. 12, 2000, entitled “SCOPE EVIDENTIALARGUMENTATION SYSTEM” by J. D. Lowrance, et al, which application isincorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.

U.S. GOVERNMENT RIGHTS

[0002] This application was made with government support under contractnumber N66001-97-C-8551, subcontract No. PSR-97-8551-00-SC-01, awardedby the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of NavalResearch. The government has certain rights in this invention.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0003] The present invention relates generally to analytical tools forfacilitating decision making. More specifically, the present inventionrelates to methods and apparatus for building arguments to support aconclusion as to whether a particular situation is likely to have anegative or positive outcome.

[0004] The survival of an enterprise often rests upon its ability tomake correct and timely decisions, despite the complexity anduncertainty of the environment. Understanding the world and facing thedifferent alternatives it presents us is crucial in any effort.

[0005] Different studies and formalisms of argumentation have come outof different fields such as philosophy (Lorenzen and Lorenz 1977;Perelman (1970); Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958; Toulmin 1958),decision analysis (Sycara 1990), and artificial intelligence (Dung1995). These formalisms attempt to deal with the uncertainty inherentlypresent in the world. Behind every decision, though, there is anargument supporting it, and arguments range from rhetorical explanationsto mathematical proofs. Argumentation theory leverages problem solvingunder uncertainty by supporting qualitative and quantitative approaches.

[0006] Analysis, on the other hand, deals with the examination andseparation of a complex situation, its elements, and its relationships.More often than not, the situation is full of unknowns, uncertainties,and deliberate misinformation. The analyst is confronted not only withthe facts, but also with his or her knowledge about the facts andassumptions, others possible knowledge, the hypotheses that can be drawnfrom those facts, and the evidence supporting and contradicting thosehypotheses (Heuer 1999).

[0007] Conventional analytic products are recorded as text, such asmessages, Web pages, or documents. One drawback with these forms ofrecorded arguments is that they are time consuming to read andcomprehend, slowing comparisons and explanations. Althoughtext-processing tools help to streamline production of these products,they provide little or no support in guaranteeing that the arguments arecomprehensive and easily understood. Many of the attempts made tointroduce automation into the decision making process are based ondecision theoretic constructs and tend to suffer from the samedrawbacks:

[0008] These models reduce the analyst's role to that of data entry,making the models unpopular with analysts. Additionally, explanationsgiven for the conclusions are often incomprehensible to analysts, sincethe lines of reasoning are explained in terms of conditionalprobabilities, making the conclusions hard to accept. Even if an analystwere to accept a role limited to data entry and come to believe theconclusions based on a history of success, the world would change,requiring that the analytic model be updated, which the analysts areunable to do. Because of these problems, the tools typically fall intodisuse even when they had been initially successful. Because of thedifficulty of employing formal methods, decision makers typically resortto informal methods, sacrificing structure and rigor.

[0009] Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a user-centric analyticaltool that allows users of different levels of expertise to easily andefficiently engage in the process of argument creation and analysis.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0010] Accordingly, specific embodiments of the present inventionprovide an apparatus and method for facilitating decision making. Ingeneral terms, the present invention is based on the concept of astructured argument having a plurality of questions that are used toassess whether an opportunity or threat of a given type is imminent.These questions are called the argument's template (as opposed to theargument, which is an instantiation of the template). In oneimplementation, the structured argument is based on a hierarchicallyorganized set of questions (e.g., a tree structure).

[0011] This hierarchy of lower level questions supporting higher levelquestions may go a few levels deep before bottoming out in questionsthat are to be directly assessed and answered. Preferably, these aremultiple-choice questions, with the different answers corresponding todiscrete points or subintervals along a continuous scale, with one endof the scale representing strong support for a particular type ofopportunity or threat and the other end representing strong refutation.Leaf or children nodes represent primitive questions, and internal orparent nodes represent derivative questions. The links represent supportrelationships among the questions. Derivative questions are supported byall the derivative and primitive questions linked below it. Preferably,documentary or other supporting evidence and rationale are associatedwith each answer to a question so that an analyzer may quickly determinethe line of reasoning of the argument.

[0012] In one embodiment, an analytical system for generating andaccessing arguments is disclosed. Each argument has an associatedconclusion as to whether a particular situation will likely have anegative or positive result. The analytical system includes a databasefor storing a plurality of templates that each include a plurality ofquestions which may be answered to generate a particular argument havingan associated conclusion regarding a particular situation that is basedon answers to its associated template questions. The system furtherincludes an argument server for selecting one of the templates which ismost relevant to a particular situation and for receiving input to oneor more of the selected template's questions to thereby generate a newargument having an associated conclusion based on such answers. Theassociated conclusion indicates whether the particular situation willlikely have a positive or negative result.

[0013] In another aspect, the invention pertains to a method foraccessing or generating an argument having a conclusion for a particularsituation. A plurality of templates are searched for a relevant templatemost related to a particular situation. Each template includes aplurality of questions. One or more questions of the relevant templateare answered to then form a new argument having a conclusion based onthe one or more answers.

[0014] In another aspect, the invention pertains to a computer readablemedium containing program instructions for accessing or generating anargument having a conclusion for a particular situation. The computerreadable medium includes computer code for performing at least some ofthe above described method operations and a computer readable mediumthat stores the computer codes. In another aspect, a computer systemoperable to access or generate an argument having a conclusion for aparticular situation is disclosed. The computer system includes one ormore processors and one or more memory. At least one of the processorsand memory are adapted to perform at least some of the above describedmethod operations.

[0015] These and other features and advantages of the present inventionwill be presented in more detail in the following specification of theinvention and the accompanying figures which illustrate by way ofexample the principles of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0016] The present invention will be readily understood by the followingdetailed description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings,wherein like reference numerals designate like structural elements, andin which:

[0017]FIG. 1 is a diagrammatic representation of an analytical systemimplemented within a computer network in accordance with one embodimentof the present invention;

[0018]FIG. 2 is a diagrammatic representation of the argument server ofFIG. 1 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention;

[0019]FIG. 3 is a diagrammatic representation of a set of templates andarguments in accordance with one implementation of the presentinvention;

[0020]FIG. 4 illustrates particular details of a template in accordancewith one embodiment of the present invention;

[0021]FIG. 5 illustrates a multi-dimensional argument in accordance withone embodiment of the present invention;

[0022]FIG. 6 is a diagrammatic representation of a portion of theargument of FIG. 5 in accordance with one embodiment of the presentinvention;

[0023]FIG. 7A and 7B are flowcharts illustrating the procedure forgenerating an argument in accordance with one embodiment of the presentinvention;

[0024]FIG. 8 is a screen shot of an object manager interface inaccordance with one embodiment of the present invention;

[0025]FIG. 9 is an example of a parameter display for enteringparameters for retrieving objects;

[0026]FIG. 10 is an example of a situation descriptor viewer/editor formanaging the situation descriptors that are associated with a particularargument and template;

[0027]FIG. 11 depicts an access window for displaying and/or modifyingthe publication information for an unpublished uni-dimensional argument;

[0028]FIG. 12 illustrates an example question having two pieces ofassociated documentary evidence; and

[0029]FIG. 13 illustrates a new memo editor in accordance with oneembodiment of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS

[0030] Reference will now be made in detail to a specific embodiment ofthe invention. An example of this embodiment is illustrated in theaccompanying drawings. While the invention will be described inconjunction with this specific embodiment, it will be understood that itis not intended to limit the invention to one embodiment. On thecontrary, it is intended to cover alternatives, modifications, andequivalents as may be included within the spirit and scope of theinvention as defined by the appended claims. In the followingdescription, numerous specific details are set forth in order to providea thorough understanding of the present invention. The present inventionmay be practiced without some or all of these specific details. In otherinstances, well known process operations have not been described indetail in order not to unnecessarily obscure the present invention.

[0031]FIG. 1 is a diagrammatic representation of an analytical system100 implemented within a computer network in accordance with oneembodiment of the present invention. As shown, the analytical system 100includes an argument server 102 and a memory unit 107. Any suitableprocessing unit, such as one or more general purpose computer, may beconfigured to provide the capabilities (as described further below) ofthe argument server 102 and memory 107. The memory 107 is generally usedto store a plurality of templates and arguments 106. Each templateincludes a plurality of questions that are relevant for reaching aconclusion regarding a particular situation.

[0032] The templates are preferably generated by decision making experts(e.g., via browser 108 and argument server 102). A user may form anargument by selecting and instantiating a template (e.g., via browser104 a and argument server 102). The user may at least partially completethe instantiated argument by answering one or more questions of theinstantiated argument and associating rationale statements andsupporting relevant evidence with each answered question. The user mayalso associate exhibits with one or more questions that may be relevantto answering such question so that other collaborative users may answerthe question using the associated exhibit which is then “promoted” torelevant evidence (e.g., via browser 104 b and argument server 102).Alternatively, the user who initiates the exhibit may “promote” theexhibit to documentary evidence to support an answer to a question afteranalyzing the exhibit further.

[0033] Memory 107 may contain both historical arguments/templates 106 band current arguments/templates 106 a. The historicalarguments/templates include arguments and templates that have beencompleted and stored within memory 107 (also referred to as “published”arguments). The current arguments/templates include arguments andtemplates that are currently being generated by one or more users. In apreferred embodiment, current users collaborate within a computernetwork (e.g., via browsers 104 a and 104 b and argument server 102) toform current arguments and templates 106 a. These users may also, ineffect, collaborate with users from the past by accessing and usinghistorical arguments and/or templates 106 b to form current argumentsand/or templates 106 a. Alternatively, the collaborators may generate acurrent argument and template that is not based on a historical argumentor template. That is, a new template is generated and instantiated as acurrent argument. After the argument or template is generated by thecollaborating users, the finished arguments and templates are thenstored in memory 107 as historical arguments and templates 106 b.

[0034] Via argument server 102, users may then access the historical andcurrent arguments and templates 106 b for decision making purposes. Forexample, users may access past situations and conclusions represented inhistorical arguments and compare these past situations to a currentsituation to predict the outcome of the current situation. In theillustrated example, decision makers access historical arguments andtemplates 106 b via browser 110, argument server 102, and memory 107.For example, the decision makers view graphical representations 112 ofthe historical arguments and templates 106 b through browser 110. Thesegraphical representations 112 present the generated arguments andtemplates in a form that facilitates decision making. In one embodiment,several historical arguments may be compiled together into a singlegraphical representation to evaluate a historical trend for a particularsituation. Users may also review graphical representations of currentarguments 114 (that may be based on historical templates or generatedfrom a newly created template) to aid in forming a new conclusionregarding a current situation through browser 110, argument server 102,and memory 107.

[0035] The argument server 102 may be configured with any suitablecombination of software and/or hardware. FIG. 2 is a diagrammaticrepresentation of the argument server 102 of FIG. 1 in accordance withone embodiment of the present invention. As shown, the argument server102 includes HTTP server 202, HTML generator 206, ontology manager 208,a graph drawing block 214, Uncertain Reasoning engine 216, and aknowledge base (KB) editor 218. The argument server 102 is alsoassociated with knowledge base (KB) server 210 and SQL server 212.

[0036] Any suitable memory management scheme may be utilized for storingarguments and templates within memory 107. In the illustratedembodiment, KB server 210 accesses and retrieves objects from memory 107via SQL server 212. Any suitable SQL server 212 may be utilized. In oneexample, an Oracle data base management system (DBMS) server may beused. The KB server 210 may have any suitable configuration. In theillustrated embodiment, the KB server 210 is formed from an Ocelotknowledge base management system (KBMS) 211 and a Perk storage system213. The KBMS 211 is generally configured to change slot values and KBframes that represent question answers that are to be stored in memory107, as well as performing calls to memory 107. The Perk storage system213 moves KB frames to and from temporary memory to and from databasememory 107, as well as handling calls to database memory 107. The OracleDBMS 212 retrieves and updates the database 107 to reflect changes in aknowledge base frame. Alternatively, the database 107 may simply bemanaged by a single SQL server 212.

[0037] The ontology manager 208 generally updates answers to questionswithin templates located in memory 107, as well as calling objects(e.g., templates and arguments) from memory 107 via KB Server 210 andSQL server 212. The HTML generator 206 interprets a command from theuser for changing an answer to an argument question, as well as callingobjects from memory 107 via ontology manager 208, KB Server 210 and SQLserver 212. The HTTP server 202 responds to a user's request regarding aweb page by querying the HTML generator 206 for such page and thensending the page to the user.

[0038] The graph drawing block 214 generally provides graphicalrepresentations of templates and arguments. The Uncertain Reasoningengine 216 generally provides mechanisms for propagating probabilitiesof answers to a hierarchical set of questions, as explained furtherbelow. The KB editor 218 generally provides mechanisms for editingelements within the KB database. Of course, one or more of thefunctional blocks associated with the server 102 may be combined orarranged in any suitable combination and number of functional blocks.

[0039]FIG. 3 is a diagrammatic representation of a set of templates andarguments 106′ in accordance with one implementation of the presentinvention. As shown, each template 302 includes a plurality of questions304, discovery tools 306, an inference method 310, and a situationdescriptor 308. In a preferred embodiment, the questions are arrangedhierarchically for facilitating determination of a particularconclusion.

[0040]FIG. 4 illustrates particular details of template 302 a of FIG. 3.Template 302 a includes a number of categories of questions 402 forreaching a conclusion for a typical business type situation. Theillustrated business situation and main question is “whether ahydrocarbon type business is likely to become unstable.” Each category402 may have an associated hierarchy of questions. An expanded view isshown for categories 404 and 406. As shown, there is a hierarchy ofquestions for a “political and regulatory” category 404 and for a“business” category 406. The main question is determined by all of thesehierarchy of questions for each category 406. More specifically, thebusiness category 406 includes a hierarchy of questions for answeringthe business category question “are there signs in the hydrocarbonsbusiness environment that are compatible with our strategic intent?” Toanswer this business category question, four lower level questions areto be answered. The four questions include:

[0041] 1. Is the supply and demand outlook consistent?

[0042] 2. Will the industrial infrastructure be appropriate?

[0043] 3. Will the resource opportunities exist as forecast?

[0044] 4. Will the right financial terms and conditions exist?

[0045] These four “children” questions each have three lower levelquestions. When the lowest level children questions are answered, thechildren answers may determine the answers for the higher level parentquestion. For example questions 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 are answered to formthe answers for question 4. Likewise, questions 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 areanswered to form the answer for question 3. Questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3are answered to form the answer for question 2, and questions 1.1, 1.2,and 1.3 are answered to form the answer for question 1. The answers forquestions 1 through 4 form the answer to the highest question for thebusiness category 406 (are there signs in the hydrocarbons businessenvironment that are compatible with our strategic intent?). Althoughthe illustrated template 302 a is shown as having multiple categories402, a template may have only a single category, e.g., uni-dimensional.

[0046] Referring back to FIG. 3, each template 302 may include one ormore discovery tools 306. A discovery tool generally provides mechanismsto aid in answering a question. By way of examples, the discovery toolmay include a query to a search engine, a query to a database, a link toa web page, a reference to a cascaded template, or a call to any webaccessible tool.

[0047] Each template 302 may also include one or more inference methods301 for determining how to propagate answers from children questions upto their parent questions, which inference methods are explained furtherbelow. Each template also includes a situation descriptor 308 thatdescribes the type of situations for which the template is intended tobe used. The memory 107 may also contain an index for a plurality ofsituation descriptors. This index may be searched (e.g., via server 102)for situation descriptors that closely match a current situation toobtain possibly relevant templates for a current situation. The mostrelevant template may then be used to form a new or current argument forthe current situation.

[0048] When a current argument is filled with answers to the associatedtemplate questions, the current argument may be saved as a historicalargument. For example, the associated template is applied to the currentsituation. The associated template may also be applied to othersituations to form other arguments having possibly varying conclusions.In other words, each new situation results in a new argument with acorresponding conclusion. Accordingly, each template may be associatedwith one or more arguments 312 as shown if FIG. 3.

[0049] As shown, each argument includes a plurality of answers 314, oneor more rationale 316 associated with each answer, one or more pieces ofrelevant evidence 318 associated with each answer, and a situationdescriptor 320. A rationale 316 generally specifies why a particularanswer is given. The documentary evidence 318 also generally supportseach answer by presenting one or more sources for the particular answer.That is, an evidence's relevance to the subject matter of an argumenthas been established and recorded. However, the evidence does not haveto be documentary. In other words, the evidence may include anythingthat is helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement, as well as anyspecies of proof presented for the purpose of inducing beliefs in acontention for a particular answer to a question. A situation descriptor320 generally describes what an argument is about. For example, thesituation descriptor describes the actors, the types of event underdiscussion, where or when the discussion occurs, and the perspectivefrom which the situation is being analyzed.

[0050]FIG. 5 illustrates a multi-dimensional argument 312 a inaccordance with one embodiment of the present invention. The argument312 a includes a plurality of categories 502 which each containquestions that have been answered to form a particular conclusionregarding a particular situation. Each category has a hierarchy ofquestions 504 (shown only for the economic category) which are answeredto form a conclusion regarding the particular category.

[0051] As shown, each answer is represented by a different color orshade which in turn represents a different level of risk or opportunityfor a particular question. In the illustrated embodiment, the colors aregreen, yellow-green, yellow, orange, and red. Green represents a highlylikely positive outcome; red represents a highly likely negativeoutcome; yellow-green indicates a likely positive outcome; orangeindicates a likely negative outcome; and yellow indicates an about aslikely as not negative or positive outcome. This type of color schemeoverlaid onto the tree structure (e.g., tree structure 504 for theeconomic category) provides an easy to understand mechanism forefficiently conveying the reasoning for the final argument conclusion.Several color schemes are described further below.

[0052] Additionally, the answers for children questions may bepropagated up to a parent question. That is, the answer for question 524is formed from the answers 522, 526, 528 and 530. Likewise, the answerfor question 522 is formed from answers 520. One of the answers 520 isformed from the answers of a cascaded argument 506.

[0053] One or more of the answers may include documentary evidence,e.g., 532 a and 532 b. Other answers may include other types ofsupporting evidence. For example, an answer may be supported with acritical path analysis 508 or a query structure 510. One or more ofthese supporting evidence structures may also include documentaryevidence, e.g., 534.

[0054]FIG. 6 is a diagrammatic representation of a portion of theargument 312 a of FIG. 5 in accordance with one embodiment of thepresent invention. As shown, the argument includes a tree graphic 602for a hierarchically arranged set of answers. The different answers 602are each represented by different colors or shades of gray. Any of theanswers may be expanded by selected a node within the tree graphic 602.Specifically, the details of answer 604 are expanded below the treegraphic 602. In the illustrated embodiment, the presented question foranswer 604 is “Is national output growth declining rapidly and/ornegative?” Amplification 606 may also be presented for such question604. The amplification is part of the initial template upon which thisargument is based. Amplification may include any suitable informationwhich the user may consider to answer the question. As shown, aplurality of examples are listed as amplification. Specifically, a useris instructed to consider that:

[0055] GDP growth rates indicate substantially declining output growth,GDP per capita growth rates indicate declines, and Rates of investmentare unusually low and/or negative.

[0056] For each question, a list of multiple choice answers 608 are alsopresented. The user may select one or more of these answers. As shown,the user has selected two answers for answer 604. Preferably, eachanswer reflects a level of risk or opportunity. That is, each answerindicates a likelihood of a negative or positive outcome for theassociated question. Said in another way, each multiple choice questionhas a categorical scale of likelihood represented by a number ofanswers. In one embodiment, there may be three answers: highly likely,about as likely as not, and highly unlikely. In the illustratedembodiment, the expanded question has five answers: highly likely,likely, about as likely as not, unlikely, and highly unlikely. In ourexample, each answer pertains to the likelihood that national outputgrowth will decline. Accordingly, the user may select one or more levelsof likelihood that the national output is declining:

[0057] National output is growing at a good or normal pace.

[0058] It is unlikely that the output growth rate will fall rapidly.

[0059] It is possible that the output growth rate will fall rapidly.

[0060] It is likely that the output growth rate will fall rapidly.

[0061] It is highly likely that the output growth rate will fallrapidly.

[0062] After the user selects one or more answers 608, the user mayassociate one or more rationale for choosing such answers. The rationalegenerally includes the user's or users' reasons for selecting his or heranswers to the associated question. The user may also associatedocumentary evidence 612 that support his or her answers to theassociated question.

[0063] The presented question 604 may also include exhibits 614 ordiscovery tools 616 that may be utilized to answer the associatedquestion. The exhibits 614 are generally documents that are potentiallyrelevant to answering the question. As described above, the discoverytools 616 may include parameterized queries or tools that may belaunched to display information or produces results that are relevant tothe particular question. An exhibit may be associated with a particularargument question until someone accepts or denies the exhibit'srelevance to answering the particular question. This is particularuseful in a collaborative environment where a first user is unsure as tohow to answer a particular question but thinks that a particular exhibitmay be relevant towards answering such question. A second user (or thesame first user) may later review the exhibit and verify it's relevance,answer the question based at least in part on the exhibit, and mark theexhibit as documentary evidence.

[0064]FIG. 7A and 7B are flowcharts illustrating the procedure 700 forgenerating an argument in accordance with one embodiment of the presentinvention. Initially, historical templates are found that are relevantto a particular current situation in operation 702. It is thendetermined whether a historical template is to be selected to generate anew argument or a new template is to be generated in operation 704.Operation 702 may be skipped and a new template generated for thesituation (e.g., operation 726).

[0065] Any suitable interface may be utilized for facilitatinggeneration of new objects (e.g., arguments and templates) and retrievalof historical or previously generated objects. FIG. 8 is a screen shotof an object manager interface 800 in accordance with one embodiment ofthe present invention. The object manager 800 is generally responsiblefor the creation, copying, deleting, retrieval, and opening of argumentsand templates. As shown, the object manager 800 is presenting a numberof objects in display 812. As shown, there is a button in the toolbar802 for each of these operations. Additionally, the toolbar 802 includesa print button that prints this current window and a logout button thatdismisses the current window and ends the user's session with theargument server 102. On the right of the tool bar 802, a Manager ViewerParameters Editor button 806 invokes that editor, a Personal Informationbutton 808 invokes a User Information Editor, and a Help button 810invokes a Help system

[0066] Objects in this display 812 are retrieved according to searchparameters. The current parameter settings 804 are summarizedimmediately below the toolbar 802. Pushing the Manager Viewer Parameterseditor button 806 brings up a parameter display where these setting canbe modified. FIG. 9 is an example of a parameter display 900 forentering parameters for retrieving objects. The user can either directlytype in the desired criteria or use the discovery buttons (e.g., 902 aand 902 b) adjacent to some of these fields to hierarchically browse andselect the desired option. Once the user has entered the desiredcriteria, pushing the OK button 904 will cause objects matching thatcriteria and accessible to the user (see Publishing description below)to be retrieved and displayed in the Manager window 812; pushing thecancel button 906 will return to the Manager 900 without affecting itscontent.

[0067] Thus, a user may search for and retrieve historical templatesthat are relevant to the current situation through Manager 900.Referring back to FIG. 8, retrieved objects 812 (matching the parametersettings summarized immediately below the toolbar 802) are listedhierarchically in the lower portion of this display. Items that haveothers items below them in the hierarchy that are not currently visible,have a + button adjacent to them. Clicking on the + button will revealthe items that are immediately below this item in the hierarchy and willchange the + to a − button Clicking on a − button causes the itemdisplayed below the associated items to be hidden and causes the −button to be replaced with a + button. When the cursor is positionedover objects representing arguments or templates, the associatedsituation descriptor and publication information is displayed in apop-up. Thus, using these buttons, the hierarchy of currently retrievedobjects can be incrementally browsed and explored to determine therelevance of particular arguments and templates to the currentsituation.

[0068] By clicking on the icon adjacent to a retrieved historicalargument or template, that object may be opened in a HierarchicalViewer/Editor window (not shown) so the user may assess its relevance.If a retrieved historical template is to be used, a new argument is theninstantiated or selected based on the selected historical template inoperation 706. Once a relevant historical template is found, the usermay select the new button 814 in the toolbar 802 to create a newargument based on the relevant template. Alternatively, one may selectthe copy button 816 for a currently retrieved relevant argument tocreate a copy of the retrieved argument that may be changed and formedinto a new argument.

[0069] After a new argument is selected, situation parameters may thenbe selected for the new argument in operation 708. FIG. 10 is an exampleof a situation descriptor viewer/editor 1000 for managing the situationdescriptors that are associated with a particular argument and template.Here the situation descriptor viewer/editor 1000 depicts the situationdescriptor associated with a multidimensional argument (i.e., IRAQ-99).

[0070] In general terms, a situation descriptor describes what anargument or template is about: who is the actor under discussion, whatsort of event is under discussion, where (i.e., region) or when thesituation occurs (i.e., time interval), and the perspective from whichthe situation is being analyzed. In the case of a template, thedescriptor indicates how a template is intended to be used: forsituations in a certain region of the world, or to analyze a particulartype of actor, or a particular type of event. In the case of anargument, the descriptor indicates what an argument is about: the actoranalyzed, the precise event, where or when the situation under analysisoccurred.

[0071] Some of the situation descriptor slots (e.g., slots are used witha knowledge base database) may only be filled by selections from apredefined set of terms (e.g., those preceded by a discovery button)while others may be filled with free-form text (e.g., those not precededby a discovery button). The fixed slots are the primary basis forretrieval: they constitute the equivalent of a library “card catalog”for indexing and retrieving arguments and templates. While the fixedslots might only approximate the true nature of the situation, thefree-form slots provide a means to more precisely describe thesituation. Using the object manager 900, the fixed slots are firstexploited to retrieve potentially relevant arguments and templates, thenthe free-form slots are examined by the user to make the finaldetermination of relevance.

[0072] Access parameters for the new argument may also be selected inoperation 710. Access parameters generally specify who may view and/oredit the new argument. FIG. 11 depicts an access window 1100 fordisplaying and/or modifying the publication information for anunpublished uni-dimensional argument (i.e., ECONOMIC.IRAQ-99). TheUnpublished Template symbol 1102 indicates that neither this argumentnor its underlying template are published; the absence of a “READ ONLY”symbol indicates that the current user can modify this argument.

[0073] One or more discovery tools may be selected and used in operation712. FIG. 6 shows discovery tools 616 being associated with question606. Answers to one or more questions of the selected template may thenbe selected in operation 714. FIG. 6 illustrates answers 608 that arepresented for question 606. In this illustration, the user has selectedtwo answers by clicking on two selection buttons 609. Exhibits ordocumentary evidence may also be associated with one or more questionsin operation 714. Additionally, previous exhibits may be promoted toevidence. FIG. 6 illustrates documentary evidence 612 and exhibits 614associated with question 606.

[0074] Each question may have more than one piece of supportingevidence. FIG. 12 illustrates a question having two pieces of associateddocumentary evidence 1202. Each piece of evidence may result in adifferent answer for the associated question. As shown, each piece ofanswer has a different set of answers selected.

[0075] A fusion method 1204 may also be selected for multiple pieces ofevidence in operation 718. The default fusion method is a manual fusionmethod, where the user must select the answer based on the supportingpieces of evidence. The fusion method is similar to the above describedinference method associated with questions. Both the fusion andinference methods determine how answers are combined into a singleanswer. The fusion method determine how the separate answers formed foreach piece of evidence are combined into a single answer to a particularquestion, while the inference method determines how children answers arecombined to form an answer for a higher level parent question. In bothmethods, the answers may be averaged together, a minimum answer may beselected (most negative outcome) or a maximum answer may be selected(most positive outcome). As shown, the maximum fusion method is selectedIn the above described red-green color scheme, the answer having themost red shaded lights is used for the final answer in the maximummethod and the answer having the most green shaded lights is used forthe final answer in the minimum method.

[0076] One or more rationales may be selected for each answer inoperation 720. FIG. 6 illustrates rationale 610 associated with question606. A comment may also be associated with one or more portions of thenew argument in operation 722. One or more users may be selected ashaving access privileges with respect to a particular comment. On oneembodiment, memos are created by filling out all of the fields in thenew memo editor 1300 as illustrated in FIG. 13.

[0077] The memo Type indicate the purpose of the memo. Memos can be usedfor any suitable purpose. In the illustrated examples, memos may be usedto leave instructions for others on how to use argument/templates, tocritique an argument/template, to record overriding assumptions, toattach a summary, to state the context within which thisargument/template was/should be used, to indicate what is left to do, orto attach a miscellaneous comment.

[0078] The Author and Audience are similar to the author and audience ofarguments and templates: authors can modify the memo while members ofthe audience can view but not modify the memo. These fields can bedirectly filled out by typing or indirectly with the aid of a browser,invoked by pushing the adjacent discovery buttons. The Subject tells thereader what the memo is about and the Text provides the details.Preferably, the memos are only seen when the object to which they areattached is viewed by members of the Audience or Authors.

[0079] When the new argument is complete, the finished argument may thenbe published in operation 724. Preferably, after an argument ispublished, it cannot be altered. When alteration is prohibited, usersmay then rely on a published argument as being stable. If updates for aparticular situation and published are desired, a new updated argumentmay be generated for the particular situation. The new updated argumentmay reach a different conclusion than the previous argument.

[0080] If a historical template is not going to be used, a new templatemay be generated in operation 726. A new argument may then be selectedbased on the new template in operation 728. The user may then completeportions of the argument in operations 708-722. The completed argumentmay then be published in operation 724.

[0081] Although the foregoing invention has been described in somedetail for purposes of clarity of understanding, it will be apparentthat certain changes and modifications may be practiced within the scopeof the appended claims. It should be noted that there are manyalternative ways of implementing both the process and apparatus of thepresent invention. For example, a template does not have to first beinstantiated as an argument before the template questions are answered,etc. Alternatively, a template may become a new argument after it is atleast partially completed and saved or upon publication. Accordingly,the present embodiments are to be considered as illustrative and notrestrictive, and the invention is not to be limited to the details givenherein, but may be modified within the scope and equivalents of theappended claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. An analytical system for generating and accessingarguments, wherein each argument has an associated conclusion as towhether a particular situation will likely have a negative or positiveresult, the analytical system comprising: a database for storing aplurality of templates that each include a plurality of questions whichmay be answered to generate a particular argument having an associatedconclusion regarding a particular situation that is based on answers toits associated template questions; and an argument server for selectingone of the templates which is most relevant to a particular situationand for receiving input to one or more of the selected template'squestions to thereby generate a new argument having an associatedconclusion based on such answers, the associated conclusion indicatingwhether the particular situation will likely have a positive or negativeresult.
 2. An analytical system as recited in claim 1, wherein theargument server is further configured to associate supporting evidencewith each answer to each template question.
 3. An analytical system asrecited in claim 1, wherein each template's questions are formed in ahierarchical structure, wherein a parent question that has a pluralityof children questions may be automatically answered by answering theparent's children questions.
 4. An analytical system as recited in claim1, wherein the argument server is further configured to associate arationale with each answer to each template question.
 5. An analyticalsystem as recited in claim 1, wherein input to one or more of theselected template's questions may be received from a plurality of usersover a computer network.
 6. An analytical system as recited in claim 5,wherein the argument server is further configured to allow one or moreof the users to associate comments to at least a portion of the newargument.
 7. An analytical system as recited in claim 6, wherein thecomments are only accessible by one or more specified users.
 8. Ananalytical system as recited in claim 1, wherein each template questionis a multiple choice question.
 9. An analytical system as recited inclaim 8, wherein each multiple choice question asks to what degree oflikelihood will a particular factor related to the particular situationhave a positive or negative result.
 10. An analytical system as recitedin claim 9, wherein each multiple choice question has a categoricalscale of likelihood represented by a set of answers that partition thelikelihood scale.
 11. An analytical system as recited in claim 9,wherein each template's questions are formed in a hierarchicalstructure, wherein the argument server is further configured toautomatically answer a parent question having a plurality of childrenquestions based on answers to the parent's children questions.
 12. Ananalytical system as recited in claim 11, wherein the argument server isfurther configured to allow more than one answer for each question. 13.An analytical system as recited in claim 11, wherein the parent questionis automatically answered using a answering technique selected by auser.
 14. An analytical system as recited in claim 13, wherein theanswering technique may be selected from a group consisting of amaximization technique, an averaging technique, and a minimizationtechnique.
 15. An analytical system as recited in claim 11, wherein eachanswer within the hierarchical structure has a color selected from asubset of colors, each color representing a different answer so that thehierarchical structure's colors convey a line of reasoning.
 16. Ananalytical system as recited in claim 11, wherein one or more templatequestions is associated with a second hierarchical structure ofquestions and the first and second hierarchical structures together forma set of cascaded arguments.
 17. An analytical system as recited inclaim 1, wherein one or more template questions have an associateddiscovery tool that facilitates answering of such associated templatequestion.
 18. An analytical system as recited in claim 1, wherein eachtemplate is associated with a situation descriptors and the argumentserver selects one of the templates which is most relevant to aparticular situation by comparing a current situation to the situationdescriptors associated with the templates to thereby find the mostrelevant templates having the most closely matching situationdescriptors.
 19. An analytical system as recited in claim 1, wherein theargument server is further configured to allow creation of a newtemplate, wherein the new template is created by an expert.
 20. A methodfor accessing or generating an argument having a conclusion for aparticular situation, the method comprising: searching a plurality oftemplates for a relevant template most related to a particularsituation, wherein each template includes a plurality of questions; andanswering one or more questions of the relevant template to form a newargument having a conclusion based on the one or more answers.
 21. Amethod as recited in claim 20, further comprising associating supportingevidence to each answered template question.
 22. A method as recited inclaim 21, further comprising associating a rationale to each answeredtemplate question.
 23. A method as recited in claim 20, wherein eachtemplate's questions are formed in a hierarchical structure, wherein aparent question that has a plurality of children questions may beautomatically answered by answering the parent's children questions. 24.A method as recited in claim 20, wherein input to one or more of theselected template's questions may be received from a plurality of usersover a computer network.
 25. A method as recited in claim 24, the methodfurther comprising allowing one or more of the users to associatecomments to at least a portion of the new argument.
 26. A method asrecited in claim 25, wherein the comments are only accessible by one ormore specified users.
 27. A method as recited in claim 20, wherein eachtemplate question is a multiple choice question.
 28. A method as recitedin claim 27, wherein each multiple choice question asks to what degreeof likelihood will a particular factor related to the particularsituation have a positive or negative result.
 29. A method as recited inclaim 28, wherein each multiple choice question has a categorical scaleof likelihood represented by a set of answers that partition thelikelihood scale.
 30. A method as recited in claim 28, wherein eachtemplate's questions are formed in a hierarchical structure, the methodfurther comprising automatically answering a parent question having aplurality of children questions based on answers to the parent'schildren questions.
 31. A method as recited in claim 30, the methodfurther comprising providing more than one answer for at least onequestion.
 32. A method as recited in claim 30, wherein the parentquestion is automatically answered using a answering technique selectedby a user.
 33. A method as recited in claim 32, wherein the answeringtechnique may be selected from a group consisting of a maximizationtechnique, an averaging technique, and a minimization technique.
 34. Amethod as recited in claim 30, wherein each answer within thehierarchical structure has a color selected from a subset of colors,each color representing a different answer so that the hierarchicalstructure's colors convey a line of reasoning.
 35. A method as recitedin claim 30, wherein one or more template questions is associated with asecond hierarchical structure of questions and the first and secondhierarchical structures together form a set of cascaded arguments.
 36. Amethod as recited in claim 20, wherein one or more template questionshave an associated discovery tool that facilitates answering of suchassociated template question.
 37. A method as recited in claim 20,wherein each template is associated with a situation descriptors, themethod further comprising selecting one of the templates which is mostrelevant to a particular situation by comparing a current situation tothe situation descriptors associated with the templates to thereby findthe most relevant templates having the most closely matching situationdescriptors.
 38. A method as recited in claim 20, the method furthercomprising creating a new template, wherein the new template is createdby an expert.
 39. A computer readable medium containing programinstructions for accessing or generating an argument having a conclusionfor a particular situation, the computer readable medium comprising:computer code for searching a plurality of templates for a relevanttemplate most related to a particular situation, wherein each templateincludes a plurality of questions; computer code for answering one ormore questions of the relevant template to form a new argument having aconclusion based on the one or more answers; a computer readable mediumthat stores the computer codes.
 40. A computer system operable to accessor generate an argument having a conclusion for a particular situation,the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or morememory, wherein at least one of the processors and memory are adaptedto: search a plurality of templates for a relevant template most relatedto a particular situation, wherein each template includes a plurality ofquestions; and answer one or more questions of the relevant template toform a new argument having a conclusion based on the one or moreanswers.